October 20, 2006

Arbitration
Appeals

Presumably, the evidentiary rules were also relaxed to facilitate swifter adjudications, with the practical reality being that the arbitrations were paneled by more or less experienced attorneys with some facility for understanding medicolegal issues without necessitating expert testimony, either live or by deposition, that might well exceed the actual time within which it would take to arbitrate the dispute.

Obviously, different considerations are implicated before medicolegally unsophisticated fact finding juries.

Until 2003, de novo triels were controlled by the formal application of the Rules of Evidence.

Cases appealed from arbitration awards to trial divisions had, until 2003, required that the trial de novo be controlled by the formal application of the Rules of Evidence, requiring that documents be authenticated, and that expert opinions be offered through expert testimony when being presented to juries. This requirement necessarily resulted in a significant spike in trial-associated expenses and costs for non-serious and non-complex cases.

On appeal, Plaintiffs were permitted to introduce into evidence the same type of records and documents that would have been admissible before an arbitration panel.

In 2003, Rule 1311.1, titled “Procedure on Appeal, Admission of Documentary Evidence,” was promulgated in order to permit Plaintiffs, in appeals from awards of arbitrators, to stipulate to the maximum amount recoverable at trial being limited to $15,000, with the Plaintiffs then being permitted to introduce into evidence the same type of records and documents that would have been admissible before an arbitration panel under Rule 1305(b)(1).

That rule permits the evidentiary admission of documentary evidence so long as the offering party provides notice of its intent, typically requiring formal production of the documents, to other litigants 20 days in advance of the arbitration or trial. The 2003 amendment requires the Plaintiff to file a formal stipulation limiting the amount recoverable to $15,000, with the jury being charged on the stipulation and award limit.

This amendment found considerable favor with judges and litigants, and was found to be extremely useful in avoidance of time and expense.

The maximum amount recoverable has been increased from $15,000 to $25,000.

The Rule has again been amended, effective July 1, 2006. The only change to the Rule is that the maximum amount recoverable has been increased from $15,000 to $25,000.

Again, the Plaintiff must formally stipulate to the limitation on damages, with the jury being charged on the stipulation and award limit. Likewise, the 20 day notice requirement compels notice and production to other parties.

Other parties are permitted to subpoena, for live appearance and testimony, any witness whose appearance would have otherwise been waived.

Under Rules 1305 and 1311, other parties are nevertheless permitted to subpoena, for live appearance and testimony, any witness whose appearance would have otherwise been waived by operation of the Rule. In that case, the subpoenaing party bears the expense for reasonable fees and costs for the witness whose appearance has been subpoenaed.

As a practical matter, this is an extremely utilitarian procedural amendment enabling Courts and litigants to expedite trial proceedings in a more cost-effective manner in non-serious and non-complex matters.

Questions

Questions concerning this decision, or any questions involving casualty litigation practice and procedures, can be directed to our general litigation department attorneys.

(Back to top)